Following the decision in Ramphal, a further EAT ruling has reiterated the importance of confining HR's role in disciplinary proceedings to one of advice on legal questions and process, and of ensuring that the conclusions in any investigatory report include all the conclusions of the person investigating the allegations and no-one else's view.
In Dronsfield v University of Reading the EAT was critical of the fact that significant opinions favourable to the claimant were removed from the draft investigation report at a late stage, following review by the HR department and in-house lawyer. The tribunal should have sought an explanation for the changes in order to be able to assess the fairness of dismissal based on the report, so the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Key contacts
Steve Bell
Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne
Emma Rohsler
Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.